Chapter VIII: Preface: To the Seventh Edition (7)

In the sacred Scripture there is no mention but of two sorts of men, whereof some believe, so that they are saved; some believe not, and they are damned. (Mark xvi. 16; John iii. 18.) But neither the Church, nor the individual rehearsing the creed, is responsible for these denunciations. It is a formulary which happens to express suitably and well the exact opinions of the Church of England, in regard to the two great mysteries of the Trinity and incarnation, as far as they can be understood. True it is, indeed, that in her eighth Article she asserts, that the three creeds, Nicene, Athanasian, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, “ought thoroughly to be received and believed, for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.” And has the Church of England no right to make this declaration? Is she to be the only society of Christians that shall not have permission to assert that her faith is the right faith? What dissenter from the Church of England would hesitate to assume this liberty? Who is there that scruples to speak thus exclusively of his own mode of thinking? Can anything be more candidly or unexceptionably stated, than her confidence that these creeds ought to be believed, because they may be proved by warrants of holy writ? In saying this, does she preclude any man from examination? Does she lock up the volume of holy writ? She appeals solely to Scripture for the truth of her doctrine, leaving all who oppose her to the mercies of GOD. She does not presume to say with those, whose cause has lately been strangely popular, and whose language in a sister kingdom is such to this day, that whoever presumes to separate from her, “eo ipso illis nulla est speranda salus!” She does not even venture to assert, with the celebrated reformer Calvin, whose famous Institutes were written on the model of the Apostles’ Creed, and who must, no doubt, have had a view, in saying it, to his own peculiar Church, “extra ecclesiæ gremium,” &c.; “out of the bosom of the Church there is no hope whatever of salvation, or remission of sins.” We may surely be permitted to admire that strange course of things, and confusion of circumstances, that have lately conspired to render those popular whose principles are truly exclusive and intolerant; and the Church in some respects unpopular, which is as truly tolerant. Her language is constantly the same, and perfectly apostolic: “Search the Scriptures.” “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”—_Nares on the Creeds._

Let the gates of our communion be opened as wide as is consistent with the gospel of _Christ_; yet surely those will stand excluded, who hold errors expressly condemned in that gospel, and which that gospel was particularly and purposely wrote to guard against.—_Randolph on the Trinity._

The commissioners in 1688, thirty eminent divines, appointed to review and correct the liturgy, close the rubric they had prepared in the following words,—“And the condemning clauses (viz. in the Athanasian Creed) are to be understood as relating only to those who obstinately deny the substance of the Christian faith.”

It is no hard matter for witty men to put very perverse senses on Scripture to favour their heretical doctrines, and to defend them with such sophistry as shall easily impose upon unlearned and unthinking men; and the best way in this case is, to have recourse to the ancient faith of the Christian Church, to learn from thence how these articles were understood and professed by them; for we cannot but think, that those who conversed with the apostles, and did not only receive the Scriptures, but the sense and interpretation of them, from the apostles, or apostolical men, understood the true Christian faith much better than those at a farther remove; and therefore, as long as we can reasonably suppose this tradition to be preserved in the Church, their authority is very venerable.—_Sherlock on the Trinity._

These contentions were cause of much evil, yet some good the Church hath reaped by them, in that they occasioned the learned and sound in faith to explain such things as heresy went about to deprave. And in this respect the Creed of Athanasius, concerning that truth which Arianism so mightily did impugn, was both in the East and West Churches accepted as a treasure of inestimable price, by as many as had not given up even the very ghost of belief. That which heresy did by sinister interpretations go about to pervert in the first and most ancient apostolical creed, the same being by singular dexterity and plainness cleared from those heretical corruptions, partly by this creed of Athanasius. These catholic declarations of our belief, delivered by them who were so much nearer than we are unto the first publication thereof, and continuing needful for all men at all times to know, these confessions, as testimonies of our continuance in the same faith to this present day, we rather use than any other gloss or paraphrase devised by ourselves, which, though it were to the same effect, notwithstanding could not be of the like authority and credit.—_Hooker._

The doctrinal part of the creed has been called a “bulwark;” and if it be maintained, it should be maintained as a fortification. In time of peace, the inconvenience of keeping up fortifications occasions their being sometimes neglected, but when war breaks out afresh, every one is clamorous in blaming the imprudence of such neglect. If we are at peace now with the powers which would attack us where our creed would be our defence, we are always liable to be at war with them again. We have seen how naturally all the heresies condemned in the creed arise, when men once become eager in solving the difficulties of the Trinity and the incarnation; and such eagerness might at any time arise, or any revolution, or great disturbance, or confusion; and in case of renewed attacks, our present creed would be a much better defence than any new one that would be made at the time it was wanted.—_Hey’s Lectures._

What the consequence may be, should we part with our creed, may easily be inferred from what followed upon the dropping a single word (_consubstantial_, or, as expressed in our English creed, “being of one substance with the FATHER”) out of the [Nicene] creed at the Council of Ariminum. The Catholics, being deceived by the great and earnest importunity of the Arians for unity and peace, were at last prevailed upon. The word _consubstantial_ was left out; and the Arians boasted over all the world, that the Nicene faith was condemned and Arianism established in a general council. It is candour, when good Catholics are divided about words, to bring them to a right understanding of one another, which will set them at peace and unity again. But it is tameness to give up the main bulwarks of the faith to fallacious adversaries and designing men, whose arts and aims, however disguised, are always known to strike at the foundation of religion.—_Bingham and Wheatly._

To the sceptic, the Arian, and the Socinian, we do not expect to find such a creed acceptable, because it was designed to restrain the fantastic and pernicious opinions started on their part upon the subjects contained in it. But every firm and steady believer may still, and indeed ought to, hold high the value of the only creed delivered to us from antiquity, which states that first and great principle of Christian revelation, the importance and necessity of a just faith. Upon us, the ministers of the Church, especially, it is incumbent, as occasions offer, to explain and illustrate its design and uses to the more unlearned, as well as to obviate the crude exceptions made against its doctrines or language, to derive its due weight of authority from the venerable antiquity of its origin, and to draw an argument of its merits from the universal approbation with which it has been received. Who would not tremble at the proposal of laying waste a fence, which in any degree hath afforded protection to what was obtained for us at so inestimable a price; and of inviting, by a voluntary surrender of our present security, renewed instances of insult, in repeated and incessant attacks to be made upon the terms and obligations of our Christian covenant?—_Bp. Cleaver._

There are no kinds of heretics but hope to make the vulgar understand their tenets respectively, and to draw them aside from the received faith of the Church: and, therefore, it behoves the pastors of the Church to have a standing form to guard the people against any such attempts. The Christian Churches throughout the world, ever since the multiplication of heresies, have thought it necessary to guard their people by some such forms as these in standing use amongst them. And they are not so much afraid of puzzling and perplexing the vulgar by doing it, as they are of betraying and exposing them to the attempts of seducers, should they not do it. The common people will be in no danger of running either into Sabellianism, or tritheism, if they attend to the Creed itself, (which fully obviates and confutes both those heresies,) instead of listening to those who first industriously labour to deceive them into a false construction of the Creed, and then complain of the common people’s being too apt to misunderstand it.—_Waterland._

Those in authority should be very cautious how they give in to such schemes as, under the plausible pretence of pruning our vine, and reforming things in their own nature indifferent and alterable, would by degrees overturn our whole establishment.—_Randolph on the Trinity._

We may, perhaps, be reminded, that some of our own most sanguine friends have wished to expunge it. But one of them lived to retract his opinion, and a friend of truth is not to be overawed by authority, however respectable, nor silenced by popular clamour.—_Croft._

So long as there shall be any men left to oppose the doctrines which this Creed contains, so long will it be expedient, and even necessary, to continue the use of it, in order to preserve the rest; and, I suppose, when we have none remaining to find fault with the doctrines, there will be none to object against the use of the Creed, or so much as to wish to have it laid aside.—_Waterland, Ath. Creed._

Whatever may be pretended, this is not a controversy about some metaphysical abstract notions of personality, subsistence, or moral distinctions in the Divine nature; in these there will be always room left for different speculations and sentiments. It is not a controversy about forms, but it is a controversy about the very object of religious worship. Should there be a falling away from this profession, should there be a denying of the LORD that bought us, or of the HOLY SPIRIT, the Sanctifier and Comforter, disowning them to be truly and properly by nature GOD, of the same essence and eternity as the FATHER, and with him the one GOD, not three Gods, with too much reason it might be said, the glory is departed from us, whether dissenters or of the Established Church, that hath been counted the head and great support of the Protestant Churches. Should we, or they, thus fall, those Protestants, whose confessions we have mentioned, yea, and all Christians abroad, must, upon their professed principles, renounce us as not holding the head.—_London Ministers’ Cases, Trinity._

The Creed of Athanasius, and that sacred hymn of glory, than which nothing doth sound more heavenly in the ears of faithful men, are now reckoned as superfluities which we must in any case pare away, lest we cloy GOD with too much service. Yet cause sufficient there is why both should remain in use; the one as a most divine explication of the chiefest articles of our Christian belief, the other as an heavenly acclamation of joyful applause to his praises in whom we believe. Neither the one nor the other unworthy to be heard sounding, as they are, in the Church of CHRIST, whether Arianism live or die.—_Hooker._ For a detailed justification of the Athanasian Creed, see _Redcliffe on the Athanasian Creed_.

It is appointed to be said in the Church of England on the great festivals, and on certain holidays, in place of the Apostles’ Creed, at Morning Prayer. So that it may be said once a month at least.—_Sparrow. Wheatly._

This Creed is called in the Roman offices the Psalm, Quicunque vult, and was printed for antiphonal chanting, as it is now recited in our choirs; being alternated, like the Psalms between minister and people in parish churches. The right notion that a creed is also a song of thanksgiving is thus significantly cherished. It has been objected to the Church of England, that she has disingenuously attributed this Creed to St. Athanasius: whereas in fact she has not decided the question. It is called indeed the _Creed of St. Athanasius_ in the rubric before the Apostles’ Creed; but that is plainly an abbreviated term for the full designation prefixed to the Creed itself, “this confession of our Christian faith, _commonly called the Creed of Saint Athanasius_.” And even the running heading does not so designate it. The words “the Creed of _Saint Athanasius_,” was deliberately altered by the correctors of the sealed books for “at Morning Prayer,” the present heading, in which, as in all other corrections, the authentic copy was followed. See the fac-simile of the corrected sealed books in Stephens’s Book of Common Prayer with notes. The same remark may apply to the designation in the 8th Article, _Athanasius’s Creed_.

ATHEIST. (From ἀ and θέος, without GOD.) One who denies the being and moral government of GOD. There have been but few atheists in the strict sense of the word, under any system, and at any time. Some few perhaps still remain, and adopt the system of Spinosa, which supposes the universe to be one vast substance, impelled to all its movements by some internal force, which operates by a blind and irresistible necessity.

The heathen, who vied with heretics in giving names of opprobrium to true Christians, called the primitive Christians _Atheists_, because they did not worship _their_ gods.

ATONEMENT. (See _Propitiation_, _Co__venant of Redemption_, _Sacrifice_, and _Jesus Christ_.) The word atonement signifies the satisfying of Divine justice, as mentioned in the Article on the Covenant of Redemption. The etymology of the word conveys the idea of two parties, previously at variance, being set _at one_ again, and hence _at-one-ment_, from originally signifying _reconciliation_, comes, by a natural metonymy, to denote that by which the reconciliation is effected. The doctrine of the atonement is thus stated by the Church: “The SON, which is the Word of the FATHER, begotten from everlasting of the FATHER, the very and eternal GOD, and of one substance with the FATHER, took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one CHRIST, very GOD and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his FATHER to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.”—_Article 2._

That our blessed LORD suffered is sufficiently clear from Scripture, and that it was not for himself, but for us, that this GOD-man lived so sorrowfully, and died so painfully, the Scripture is full and clear: and not only in general, that it was for our sakes he did it; but, in particular, it was for the reconciling his FATHER to us, and to purchase the pardon of our sins for us,—expressly telling us, that “he hath reconciled both (Jew and Gentile) unto GOD, in one body, by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.” (Eph. ii. 16.) “Yea, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to GOD by the death of his SON.” (Rom. v. 10.) “So that us, who were sometimes alienated, and enemies in our minds by wicked works, now he hath reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present us holy, and unblameable, and unreproveable in his sight.” (Col. i. 21, 22.) And the reason is, because “it pleased the FATHER that in him should all fulness dwell;” and, “having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things to himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in heaven or things in earth.” (Verse 19, 20.) And this reconciliation of GOD to us, he made by offering up himself a sacrifice for us. For “GOD sent his SON to be the propitiation for our sins,” (1 John iv. 10,) “and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (Chap. ii. 2.) And therefore when we see him sweating great drops of blood under the burden of sin, we must not think they were his own sins that lay so heavy upon him: no, they were our sins, which he had taken off from us and laid upon himself; for he bore our griefs, and carried our sorrows; “He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed.” (Isaiah liii. 4, 5.) So undoubted a truth is this comfortable assertion, that JESUS CHRIST by his death and sufferings reconciled his FATHER to us, and therefore was a sacrifice, not only for “original guilt,” but also for “actual sins of men.”—_Beveridge._

ATTRITION. (See _Contrition_.) The casuists of the Church of Rome have made a distinction between a perfect and an imperfect contrition. The latter they call attrition, which is the lowest degree of repentance, or a sorrow for sin arising from a sense of shame, or any temporal inconvenience attending the commission of it, or merely from fear of the punishment due to it, without any resolution to sin no more: in consequence of which doctrine, they teach that, after a wicked and flagitious course of life, a man may be reconciled to GOD, and his sins forgiven, on his death-bed, by confessing them to the priest with this imperfect degree of sorrow and repentance. This distinction was settled by the Council of Trent. It might, however, be easily shown that the mere sorrow for sin because of its consequences, and not on account of its evil nature, is no more acceptable to GOD than hypocrisy itself can be.—_Conc. Trident._ sess. xiv. cap. 4.

AUDIENCE, COURT OF. The Court of Audience, which belongs to the archbishop of Canterbury, was for the disposal of such matters, whether of voluntary or contentious litigation, as the archbishop thought fit to reserve for his own hearing. This court was afterwards removed from the archbishop’s palace, and the jurisdiction of it exercised by the master-official of the audience, who held his court in the consistory palace at St. Paul’s. But now the three offices of official-principal of the archbishop, dean or judge of the peculiars, and official of the audience, being united in the person of the dean of arches, its jurisdiction belongs to him. The archbishop of York has likewise his Court of Audience.

AUGSBURGH, or AUGUSTAN, CONFESSION. In 1530, a diet of the German princes was convened by the emperor Charles V., to meet in that city, for the express purpose of pacifying the religious troubles, by which most parts of Germany were then distracted. “In his journey towards Augsburgh,” says Dr. Robertson, “the emperor had many opportunities of observing the dispositions of the Germans, in regard to the points in controversy, and found their minds everywhere so much irritated and inflamed, that nothing tending to severity or rigour ought to be attempted, till the other methods proved ineffectual. His presence seems to have communicated to all parties an universal spirit of moderation and desire of peace. With such sentiments, the Protestant princes employed Melancthon, the man of the greatest learning, as well as the most pacific and gentlest spirit among the Reformers, to draw up a confession of faith, expressed in terms as little offensive to the Roman Catholics as a regard to truth would admit. Melancthon, who seldom suffered the rancour of controversy to envenom his style, even in writings purely polemical, executed a task, so agreeable to his natural disposition, with moderation and success.”

The singular importance of this document of Protestant faith seems to require, in this place, a particular mention of its contents. It consists of twenty-one articles. In the first, the subscribers of it acknowledge the unity of GOD and the trinity of persons; in the second, original sin; in the third, the two natures and unity of person in JESUS CHRIST, and all the other articles contained in the symbol of the apostles, respecting the SON of GOD. They declare in the fourth, that men are not justified before GOD by their works and merits, but by the faith which they place in JESUS CHRIST, when they believe that GOD forgives their sins out of love for his SON. In the fifth, that the preaching of the gospel and the sacraments are the ordinary means used by GOD to infuse the HOLY GHOST, who produces faith, whenever he wills, in those that hear his word. In the sixth, that faith produces the good works to which men are obliged by the commandments of GOD. In the seventh, that there exists a perpetual Church, which is the assembly of saints; and that the word of GOD is taught in it with purity, and the sacraments administered in a legitimate manner; that the unity of this Church consists in the uniformity of doctrine and sacraments; but that an uniformity of ceremonies is not requisite. In the eighth, they profess that the word of GOD and the sacraments have still their efficacy, although administered by wicked clergymen. In the ninth, that baptism is requisite for salvation, and that little children ought to be baptized. In the tenth, that, in the sacrament of the last supper, both the body and blood of the LORD are truly present, and distributed to those who partake of it. In the eleventh, that confession must be preserved in the Church, but without insisting on an exact enumeration of sins. In the twelfth, that penance consists of contrition and faith, or the persuasion, that, for the sake of JESUS CHRIST, our sins are forgiven us on our repentance; and that there is no true repentance without good works, which are its inseparable fruits. In the thirteenth, that the sacraments are not only signs of the profession of the gospel, but proofs of the love of GOD to men, which serve to excite and confirm their faith. In the fourteenth, that a vocation is requisite for pastors to teach in the Church. In the fifteenth, that those ceremonies ought to be observed which keep order and peace in the Church; but that the opinion of their being necessary to salvation, or that grace is acquired, or satisfaction done for our sins, by them, must be entirely exploded. In the sixteenth, that the authority of magistrates, their commands and laws, with the legitimate wars in which they may be forced to engage, are not contrary to the gospel. In the seventeenth, that there will be a judgment, where all men will appear before the tribunal of JESUS CHRIST; and that the wicked will suffer eternal torments. In the eighteenth, that the powers of free-will may produce an exterior good conduct, and regulate the morals of men towards society; but that, without the grace of the HOLY GHOST, neither faith, regeneration, nor true justice can be acquired. In the nineteenth, that GOD is not the cause of sin, but that it arises only from the corrupt will of man. In the twentieth, that good works are necessary and indispensable; but that they cannot purchase the remission of sins, which is only obtained in consideration of faith, which, when it is sincere, must produce good works. In the twenty-first, that the virtues of the saints are to be placed before the people, in order to excite imitation; but that the Scripture nowhere commands their invocation, nor mentions anywhere any other mediator than JESUS CHRIST. “This,” say the subscribers of the Confession, “is the summary of the doctrine taught amongst us; and it appears from the exposition which we have just made, that it contains nothing contrary to Scripture; and that it agrees with that of the Catholic Church, and even with the Roman Church, as far as is known to us by their writers. This being so, those who wish that we should be condemned as heretics are very unjust. If there be any dispute between us, it is not upon articles of faith, but only upon abuses that have been introduced into the Church, and which we reject. This, therefore, is not a sufficient reason to authorize the bishops not to tolerate us, since we are agreed in the tenets of faith which we have set forth: there never has been an exact uniformity of exterior practice since the beginning of the Church, and we preserve the greater part of the established usages. It is therefore a calumny to say, that we have abolished them all. But, as all the world complained of the abuses that had crept into the Church, we have corrected those only which we could not tolerate with a good conscience; and we entreat your Majesty to hear what the abuses are which we have retrenched, and the reasons we had for doing it. We also entreat, that our inveterate enemies, whose hatred and calumnies are the principal cause of the evil, may not be believed.”

They then proceed to state the abuses in the Church of Rome, of which they complain. The first is the denial of the cup in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper; the second, the celibacy of the clergy; the third, the form of the mass. On this head their language is very remarkable: “Our Churches,” they say, “are unjustly accused of having abolished the mass, since they celebrate it with great veneration: they even preserve almost all the accustomed ceremonies, having only added a few German hymns to the latter, in order that the people may profit by them.” But they object to the multiplicity of masses, and to the payment of any money to a priest for saying them. The fourth abuse of which they complain, is the practice of auricular confession: but, they observe, that they have only taken from it the penitent’s obligation to make to the priest a particular enumeration of his sins, and that they had retained the confession itself, and the obligation of receiving absolution from the priest. The fifth abuse is the injunction of abstinence from particular meats. Monastic vows they represent as the sixth abuse. The seventh and last abuse of which they complain, is that of ecclesiastical power. They say that “a view of the attempts of the popes to excommunicate princes, and dispose of their states, led them to examine and fix the distinction between the secular and ecclesiastical power, to enable themselves to give to Cæsar what belongs to Cæsar, and to the popes and bishops what belongs to them.” That “ecclesiastical power, or the power of the keys, which JESUS CHRIST gave to his Church, consisted only of the power of preaching the gospel, of administering the sacraments, the forgiveness of sins, and refusing absolution to a false penitent: therefore,” say they, “neither popes nor bishops have any power to dispose of kingdoms, to abrogate the laws of magistrates, or to prescribe to them rules for their government;” and that, “if there did exist bishops who had the power of the sword, they derived this power from their quality of temporal sovereigns, and not from their episcopal character, or from Divine right, but as a power conceded to them by kings or emperors.”

It is not a little remarkable, that considerable differences, or various readings, are to be found in the printed texts of this important document, and that it is far from certain which copy should be considered the authentic edition. The German copies printed in 1530, in quarto and octavo, and the Latin edition printed in quarto in 1531, are in request among bibliographical amateurs; but there is a verbal, and, in some instances, a material, discrepancy among them. The Wittenberg edition, of 1540, is particularly esteemed, and has been adopted by the publishers of the “Sylloge Confessionum Diversarum,” printed in 1804, at the Clarendon press. [Later editions of the _Sylloge_ include also the form of 1531.] One of the most important of these various readings occurs in the tenth article. In some of the editions which preceded that of 1540, it is expressed, “that the body and blood of CHRIST are truly present, and distributed to those who partake of our LORD’S supper; and the contrary doctrine is reprobated.” The edition of 1540 expresses that, “with the bread and wine, the body and blood of CHRIST are truly given to those who partake of our LORD’S supper.”

“In the Confession of Augsburgh,” says Dr. Maclaine, the learned translator of Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History, “there are three sorts of articles; one sort, adopted equally by the Roman Catholics and Protestants; another, that consists of certain propositions, which the papal party considered as ambiguous and obscure; and a third, in which the doctrine of Luther was entirely opposite to that of Rome. This gave some reason to hope, that, by the means of certain qualifications and modifications, conducted mutually in a spirit of candour and charity, matters might be accommodated at last. For this purpose, select persons were appointed to carry on the salutary work; at first, seven from each party, consisting of princes, lawyers, and divines; which number was afterwards reduced to three. Luther’s obstinate, stubborn, and violent temper rendering him unfit for healing divisions, he was not employed in these conferences; but he was constantly consulted by the Protestant party.”

The Confession was read, at a full meeting of the diet, by the chancellor of the elector of Saxony. It was subscribed by that elector, and three other princes of the German empire, and then delivered to the emperor.—_Butler’s Confessions of Faith_. _Robertson’s Sylloge Confessionum_.

AUGUSTINES. A religious order in the Church of Rome, who followed St. Augustine’s pretended rule, ordered them by Pope Alexander IV., in 1256. It is divided into several branches, as hermits of St. Paul, the Jeronymitans, monks of St. Bridget, the Augustines called Chaussez, who go without stockings, begun in 1574, by a Portuguese, and confirmed in 1600 and 1602, by Pope Clement VIII. As for the pretended rules of St. Augustine, they are reduced to three classes, the first comprehending that the monks ought to possess nothing in particular, nor call anything their own; that the wealthy who became monks ought to sell what they had, and give the money to the poor; that those who sued for the religious habit ought to pass under trial before they were admitted; that the monks ought to subtract nothing from the monastery, nor receive anything whatsoever, without the leave of their superior, to whom they ought to communicate those points of doctrine which they had heard discoursed of without the monastery; that if any one was stubborn towards his superior, after the first and second correction in secret he should be publicly denounced as a rebel; if it happened in the time of persecution that the monks were forced to retire, they ought immediately to betake themselves to that place where their superior was withdrawn; and if for the same reason a monk had saved anything belonging to the monastery, he should give it up as soon as possible to his superior. The second class imported that they were to love GOD and their neighbour; how they were to recite the psalms, and the rest of their office; the first part of the morning they ought to employ in manual works, and the rest in reading, and to return in the afternoon to their work again until the evening; that they ought to possess nothing of their own, be obedient to their superior, keep silence in eating, have Saturday allowed to provide themselves with necessaries; and it was lawful for them to drink wine on Sundays; that when they went abroad they must always go two together; that they were never to eat out of the monastery; that they should be conscientious in what they sold, and faithful in what they bought; that they ought not to utter idle words, but work with silence; and, lastly, that whoever neglected the practice of these precepts ought to be corrected and beaten, and that the true observers of them must rejoice and be confident of their salvation. As for the third, after having enjoined them to love GOD and their neighbour, they ought to possess nothing but in common; the superior ought to distribute everything in the monastery, according to each man’s necessity, and they should not incline their hearts to temporal things; that they ought to honour GOD in one another as being become his holy temples; they must attend prayers at canonical hours, and were not to be hindered at any other time; that they should pray with attention, and sing only what was really appointed to be sung; that they ought to apply themselves to fasting and abstinence with discretion; and that if any of them was not able to fast, he ought not to eat between meals unless he was sick; that they must mind what was read to them while they were at their meals; that none ought to be envious to see the sick better treated than the rest were, or that something more delicate was given to those of a weaker constitution; that those who were recovering ought to make use of comfortable things, and, when recovered, to return to the common usage; to be grave and modest in their habits; never to be far from their companion; to express modesty and stayedness in their outward behaviour; not to cast a lustful eye upon women, nor wish to be seen by them; nor when at church to harbour any thoughts of women; that when it was known a friar courted any woman, after having been forewarned several times, he ought to be corrected; and that if he would not submit to the correction, he should be turned out of the monastery; that all correction should be inflicted with charity; that they ought not to receive letters nor presents in secret; they ought to be contented with those habits that were given them; that all their works should be rendered in common; that if some of their relations sent them clothes, it should be in the superior’s power to give them to whom he pleased; that he who concealed anything of his own should be proceeded against as guilty of robbery; they were to wash their own clothes, or have them washed by others, with the superior’s leave; those who were in any office should serve their brethren without grudging; that they ought to shun all lawsuits; that they ought to ask their brethren forgiveness for any injury done them; to forbear ill language one to another; the superior was to be obeyed, but not to be proud of his dignity; that the monks ought to observe these rules out of love, and not slavish fear; and that this rule ought to be read once a week in the presence of the monks.

The Augustine monks, (commonly called Black Canons,) according to Fuller, were established in England later than the Benedictines, that is, in 1105, though of older existence in Europe. They were next to the Benedictines in power and wealth. The members of these two orders and their branches were called _Monks_, those of the Mendicant orders, as Dominicans and Franciscans, were called _Friars_. (See _Monastery_.) But _Canon_ was the title more usually assigned to the Augustinians. This order was more numerous and powerful in Ireland than the Benedictines, though inferior to them in England. The branches of this order were the Premonstrants, (or White Canons,) the Victorines, and the Gilbertines. The Arroasians were merely reformed Augustinians, not a separate branch of the order. The Augustinians possessed two mitred abbeys, Waltham and Cirencester; one cathedral priory, Carlisle; one abbey, afterwards converted into a cathedral by Henry VIII., Bristol.

AUGUSTINE, or AUSTIN, FRIARS. These are not to be confounded with the above, being one of the minor Mendicant orders, observing the rule of St. Augustine. Fuller says they first entered England in 1252: “and had (if not their first) their finest habitation at St. Peter’s the Poor, London, thence probably taking the denomination of poverty. They were good disputants; on which account they are remembered still at Oxford by an act performed by candidates for Mastership, called _Keeping of Augustines_.” This exercise, with other ancient forms, was abolished by the University Statute towards the beginning of the present century.—_Jebb._

AURICULAR CONFESSION. (See _Confession_, _Absolution_.) The confession of sins at the ear of the priest. The following is the chapter on confession in the Council of Trent which is obligatory on the Romish Church.

“From the institution of the sacrament of repentance already set forth, the Church has always understood, that an entire confession of sins was also appointed by the LORD; and that it is of Divine right necessary to all who have lapsed after baptism. Because our LORD JESUS CHRIST, when about to ascend from earth to heaven, left his priests, his vicars, to be, as it were, the presidents and judges, to whom all mortal sins, into which CHRIST’S faithful people should fall, should be brought; in order that by the power of the keys they might pronounce sentence of remission or retention. For it is plain that the priests cannot exercise this judgment, without knowledge of the cause, nor can they observe equity in enjoining penalties, if men declare their sins only generally, and not rather particularly and separately. From this it is inferred that it is right that the penitents should recount in confession all the deadly sins of which, upon examination, their conscience accuses them, even though they be most secret and only against the two last commandments, which not unfrequently grievously wound the soul, and are more dangerous than those which are openly practised; for as to venial sins, by which we are not excluded from the grace of GOD, and into which we more frequently fall, although they may be declared in confession, rightly, usefully, and without any presumption, as the usage of pious men declares, yet they may be passed over in silence without offence, and can be expiated by many other remedies. But since all mortal sins, even thoughts, make men the children of wrath and the enemies of GOD, it is necessary to seek from GOD the pardon of all, with open and modest confession. When, therefore, CHRIST’S faithful people desire to confess all the sins which occur to their memory, they expose them all beyond all doubt to the mercy of GOD to be pardoned. But they who do otherwise, and knowingly keep back any, propose nothing to the Divine mercy to be pardoned by the priest; for if a sick man is ashamed to uncover his wound to the physician, he cannot with medicine cure that of which he has no knowledge. It is, moreover, inferred that those circumstances should be explained in confession, which change the kind of the sin; because, without these, neither can the sins themselves be entirely disclosed by the penitents, nor known to the judges; nor can they rightly judge of the grievousness of the sin, nor impose upon the penitents the fitting punishments. Whence it is unreasonable to teach that these circumstances were sought out by idle men, or that only one circumstance should be confessed, namely, to have sinned against a brother. But it is impious to call this confession impossible, which is appointed to be performed in this manner, or to style it the torture of consciences: for it appears that nothing else is required of penitents in the Church, than that, after a man has diligently examined himself, and explored the recesses and hiding-places of his conscience, he should confess those sins by which he remembers that he has mortally offended his LORD and GOD. But the other sins which do not occur to him when taking diligent thought, are understood to be included altogether in the same confession; and for these we faithfully say with the prophet, ‘Cleanse thou me, O LORD, from my secret faults.’ But the difficulty of this sort of confession, and the shame of uncovering sins, would, indeed, appear grievous, if it were not lightened by the so many and great conveniences and consolations which are most assuredly conferred by absolution upon all who rightly approach this sacrament. But as regards the manner of secretly confessing to the priest alone, although _Christ_ has not forbidden any man from publicly confessing his faults, in revenge for his sins, and humiliation of himself, both by way of example to others, and for the edification of the Church which he has offended; this is not, however, a Divine command, nor may it be advisedly enjoined by any human law, that sins, especially secret ones, should be disclosed by open confession. Wherefore, since that secret sacramental confession which the holy Church has used from the beginning, and still uses, has always been approved of by the holiest and most ancient fathers, with great consent and unanimity, the empty calumny is plainly refuted of those who are not ashamed to teach that it is contrary to the Divine command, and a human invention, which had its origin with the fathers who were assembled in the Lateran Council. For the Church did not order by the Lateran Council that CHRIST’S faithful people should confess, which she always had understood to be necessary, and appointed by Divine right, but that the command of confession should be complied with at least once in the year, by all and each who have come to years of discretion; whence now, in the universal Church, that wholesome custom of confessing in the sacred, and especially acceptable, time of Lent, is observed with great benefit to the souls of the faithful; which custom this holy synod highly approves, and receives as pious and worthy to be retained.”

Here an attempt is made to invest the Christian priesthood with the prerogative of the Most High, who is a searcher of the hearts, and a discerner of the thoughts; in forgetfulness of the very distinction which GOD drew between himself and all men—“man looketh to the outward part, the LORD trieth the heart.” As CHRIST has invested his ministers with no power to do this of themselves, the Tridentine Fathers have sought to supply what they must needs consider a grievous omission on his part, by enjoining all men to unlock the secrets of their hearts at the command of their priest, and persons of all ages and sexes to submit not only to general questions as to a state of sin or repentance, but to the most minute and searching questions as to their most inmost thoughts.

The extent to which the confessors have thought it right to carry these examinations on subjects concerning which the apostle recommends that they be not once named among Christians, and which may be seen either in “Dens’ Theology,” or “Burchard’s Decrees,” c. 19, Paris, 1549, affords a melancholy, painful, and sickening subject for contemplation; especially when it is considered that they were Christian clergy who did this, and that it was done in aid, as they supposed, of the Christian religion. The fearful effects of these examinations upon the priests themselves, we will do no more than allude to; he who may think it necessary to satisfy himself upon the point, may consult the cases contemplated and provided for (among others) by Cardinal Cajetan, in his Opuscula, Lugd. 1562, p. 114. In the Bull of Pius IV., _Contra solicitantes in confessione_, dated Ap. 16, 1561, (_Bullarium Magn._ Luxemb. 1727, ii. p. 48,) and in a similar one of Gregory XV., dated Aug. 30, 1622, (_Gregory XV. Constit. Rom._ 1622, p. 114,) there is laid open another fearful scene of danger to female confitents from wicked priests, “mulieres pœnitentes ad actus inhonestos dum earum audiunt confessiones alliciendo et provocando.” Against which flagrant dangers, and the preparatory steps of sapping and undermining the mental modesty of a young person by examinations of particular kinds, it is vain to think that the feeble bulls of the bishops of Rome can afford any security. These observations apply to the system of the Roman Church, peculiar to itself, of _compelling_ the disclosure of the most minute details of the most secret thoughts and actions. As to _encouraging_ persons whose minds are _burthened_ with the remembrance of fearful sins, to ease themselves of the burthen by revealing it to one at whose hands they may seek guidance, and consolation, and prayer, it is a totally distinct question, and nothing but wilful art will attempt to confound them. On this point we see no reason to withdraw a regret which we have before expressed as to its disuse in the Church of England; for we cannot but believe that, were it more frequently had recourse to, many a mind would depart the world at peace with itself and with GOD, which now sinks to the grave under a bond of doubt and fear, through want of confidence to make use of ghostly remedies.—_Perceval._

In the sixth canon of the Council of Trent it runs thus:—“If any shall deny that sacramental confession was instituted and is necessary for salvation by Divine right, or shall say that the custom of confessing secretly to the priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed from the beginning, and continues to observe, is foreign to the institution and command of CHRIST, and is of human invention, let him be accursed.”

Here sacramental confession is affirmed to be of Divine institution, and auricular confession likewise, and he is accursed who shall deny it. This is bravely said; yet the Tridentine Fathers might have recollected that, in the Latin Church as late as 813, it was matter of dispute whether there was need to confess to a priest at all, as appears from the thirty-third canon of the Council of Cabaillon, which is as follows: “Quidam Deo solummodo confiteri debere dicunt peccata, quidam vero sacerdotibus confitenda esse percensent: quod utrumque non sine magno fructu intra sanctam fit Ecclesiam. Ita dumtaxat ut et Deo, qui Remissor est peccatorum, confiteamur peccata nostra, et cum David dicamus, _Delictum meum cognitum tibi feci_, &c., et secundum institutionem apostoli, confiteamur alterutrum peccata nostra, et oremus pro invicem ut salvemur. _Confessio_ itaque quæ _Deo_ fit, _purgat peccata_, ea vero quæ sacerdoti fit, docet qualiter ipsa purgentur peccata,” &c. (_Conc._ vii. 1279.) Was Leo the Third asleep, that he could suffer such heresy to be broached and not denounced? But all the world knows, that, till 1215, no decree of pope or council can be adduced enjoining the _necessary_ observance of such a custom. Then, at the Council of Lateran, Innocent III. commanded it. As the Latin Church affords no sanction to the assertion of the Tridentine Fathers, so is it in vain to look for it among the Greeks, for there, as Socrates (_Hist. Eccles._ v. 19) and Sozomen (_Hist. Eccles._ vii. 16) inform us, the whole confessional was abolished by Nectarius, the archbishop of Constantinople, in the 4th century, by reason of an indecency which was committed on a female penitent, when pursuing her penance; which, sure, he would not have ventured to have done had he deemed it a Divine institution. Sozomen, in his account of the confessional, says, that the public confession in the presence of all the people, which formerly obtained, having been found grievous, φορτικὸν ὡς εἰκὸς, a wellbred, _silent_, and prudent presbyter was set in charge of it; thus plainly denoting the change from public to auricular confessions. It was this penitential presbyter whose office was abolished by Nectarius, who acted by the advice of Eudæmon, συγχωρῆσαι δὲ ἕκαστον, τῷ ἰδίῳ συνειδότι τῶν μυστηρίων μετέχειν. And the reason he assigned is one which the Church of Rome would have done well to bear in mind; οὕτω γὰρ μόνως ἔχειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τὸ ἀβλασφήμετον. (See _Perceval on Roman Schism, Hooker, Eccl. Pol._ book vi. _Bp. Taylor, Ductor Dubit._ part ii. sect. 11.)

AUMBRIE. A little closet or locker. (See _Church_.)

AURORA. The title of a Latin metrical version of several parts of the Bible, by Petrus de Riga, canon of Rheims, in the 12th century.

AUTOCEPHALI. Αὐτοκεφαλοι, _selfheaded_, or _independent_. A name originally given to all metropolitans, as having no ecclesiastical superior, and being amenable only to the judgment of a synod. After the division of the Church into patriarchates, it was given to such metropolitans as preserved their independence, and were not subject to any patriarch—as the bishop of Constantia, or Salamis, in Cyprus. Bingham, book ii. chap. 18, specifies three kinds of autocephali. 1. All metropolitans, before patriarchates were established. 2. Certain metropolitans after the establishment of patriarchates, as those of Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Iberia: and the Churches of Britain before the coming of St. Augustin. To which may be added the Church of Ireland, before its submission to Rome in the 12th century. 3. Bishops immediately subject to the patriarch of the diocese, who was to them as a metropolitan. There were twenty-five such subject to the bishop of Jerusalem. The immediate suffragans of Rome are of the same class. Bingham considers a fourth class mentioned by Valesius on Euseb. lib. v. c. 23, as very doubtful; viz. bishops wholly independent of all others.